Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

["Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com>]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:34 -0200,
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
> > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> >> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
> >> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
> >> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
> >>
> >> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> >>
> >> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
> >> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
> >>
> > how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
> > here ?
> >
> > BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
> > its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
> > add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?
> 
> The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
> qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
> u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.
> 
having a bbappend for qt is not rare especially when needing to
customize qt's configuration.

> Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
> and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
> u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
> and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.
> 
that's the magic of oe we can have very different way to handle a same
problem.

Eric